67 metres in ten years!
Ian Wishart blogs on how Al Gore recently remarked that we could have a 6 to 7 metre sea level rise within 10 years.
I think politicians like Al Gore actually damage the very cause they purport to support, with their hysterical claims.
This would be an increase of 67 cms a year.
Now the latest IPCC projections deal with six scenarios. The best case scenario has an increase of 18 cm to 38 cm. The worst case scenario is 26 cm to 59 cm. And these are over 110 years.
So the IPCC says the sea level rise will probably range from 0.16 cm/year to 0.54 cm/year. And that is undesirable, hence it is sensible to have in place a price on carbon and incentives to reduce emissions.
But what a difference – 0.16 to 0.54 cm a year, compared to Al Gore’s hysteria of a possible 67 cm a year.
Now some will say that the Gore scenario is not impossible. Of course it isn’t. Few things are impossible. It is possible in the next 24 hours a meteor will hit the Earth also. But is such hysteria a useful contributor to the debate?
UPDATE: The original news story refers to 6-7 metres, not 67 metres. I should check original sources more often, but good thing on the Internet is people pick up errors quickly. I would point out that is still a prediction of an average 670 mm a year, compared to the 0.54 mm from the IPCC. It means Gore is out by only three magnitudes, instead of four.
UPDATE2: Have rewritten article to reflect timeframe and also correct mms to cms for IPCC. Wow this is a dogs breakfast of a post. My bad. Commenters have also usefully pointed out the 10 year timeframe applies to the North Pole ice cap disappearing in winter months within 5 – 10 years, and not the Greenland melting which would be the 6-7 metre rise. Again I welcome people picking me up on this, and this is why links to sources are so important.
But let’s not lose sight of the big issue over whether sea level increases this century will be measured in metres or millimetres.
I was going to post some odds for sea level rises and challenge people to take them up. But that may get me in trouble with DIA gambling laws.
So let me try it this way. If you think the sea levels will increase by more than the 4th IPCC assessment report, then tell me what you think the average global increase will be by 2015 and 2020? And maybe we can have a private wager on that occuring. Or just have the honour of seeing who is right.
Now again I am not saying there will be no increase. I am disputing how large it may be.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
It’s odd. He’s talking about the arctic melting and causing a rise, but all of that ice is floating.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“So the IPCC says the sea level rise will probably range from 0.16 mm/year to 0.54 mm/year. And that is undesirable, hence it is sensible to have in place a price on carbon and incentives to reduce emissions.”
..and how much effect will the proposed “price on carbon and incentives to reduce emissions” have on sea levels?
Sweet fuck all.
Leaving aside the main issue- the IPCC report is a load of worthless politicised crap.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Monckton challenges Al Gore to a debate on AGW (for the 100th time)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maJeh0rsZpk
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
What’s also odd is that the original post that Mr Wishart refers to doesn’t quote a 67 metre rise in sea levels. It quotes a 6-7 metre rise in sea levels.
[DPF: Ta, post corrected]
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Goody. Off to put some cray pots down the bottom of the garden. Yum!
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Tim, you’re not supposed to click on the links, unless it’s a link to Wishart’s best-seller Air Con. Leave the research to the professionals, buddy.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
He says 6-7, not 67.
http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm
I’m just all for accuracy, unless Morano also thinks Copenhagen will take place on December 718th.
Marc Morano is playing with the language and the statements to make his point, but what he’s written compares directly only in a few respects to the original story.
Man, I hate internet whispers. It’s such a dumb game.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The latest from the IPCC is not the 2007 report that DPF linked to, it’s the Climate Change Science Compendium 2009 at http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/
It’s sobering reading
[UNEP is not the IPCC. The 5th assesment report will be the next formal IPCC sit rep, and while one can take account of other literature, I prefer not to cherrypick]
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
The worshipers at the altar of climate change don’t care much for evidence – 0.16mm is 67m is an anything-we-want-to-make-it catastrophe, ergo let’s get that ETS and/or carbon tax wealth transfer happening. And quick!
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
This is along the same line as Jim Andertons claim on National Radio that most Pacific Islands will be under the ocean within the next 20 years.
Gore and Anderton now there is a team you would bet your shirt on to come second.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Tim Ellis fisks:
Thanks, Ian Wishart… I can now amend my pick-up lines to include the claim I have an endowment of 23 inches
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Wishart. You’d think DPF would have learned by now. From the linked article:
“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.
Gore said if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
2-3 inches… FROM THE FLOOR.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“6 to 7″ metres in ten years is only marginally less ludicrous than 67 metres in ten years.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Very bad form on the misquote.
But you bring to our attention another ridiculous statement:
We can hold him to that gone in 5 years statement.
BTW we have previously had no polar ice cap at the North Pole, it is more to do with geography than the climate.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Of all the numbers he could have picked Rex decides to give himself a 2.3 inch cock. Considering people tend to exagerate on the internet I am concerned at what the true measurement may be.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Woeful post DPF… lazy lazy stuff.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
For some of you this post is a wonderful w#nk off against DPF or whomever you need to.
As a matter of interest.
How many of you have read the draft document for Copenhagen?
That is every page?
Read it not looked or glanced at it, but actually read all 181 pages of it?
I mean this event is supposed to be such a big deal in the life of the planet, I just wondered how many of you actually had read it as opposed to reading internet whispers or Youtube vids?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
As a matter of interest.
How many of you have read the draft document for Copenhagen?
That is every page?
Read it not looked or glanced at it, but actually read all 181 pages of it?
How much can you bench press?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“But is such hysteria a useful contributor to the debate?”
Certainly claims about a 6-7 meter sea level rise within the next decade aren’t helpful. Neither, however, are blog posts drawing comparisons between an obvious misquote about the effects of climate change and meteors.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
67kg.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for the link Rimu
I’ll read it in the course of the week.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Danyl
Obviously not as much as you.
I can push up 130Kg 20 times without stopping but then I’m a fat old fart.
et tu?
So have you read all of the Copenhagen draft.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
getstaffed 4:41 pm,
I’ve come up with a generic ‘name’ for the Global Warming, sorry, Climate Change high priests: Algoreans
Do you think it’ll catch on?
Do others have other suggestions for these catastrophe merchants who want to stea … I mean tax our hard earned dollars?
These Algorean suck’oles make me sick!
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
have I missed something here, Rimu
I’ve downloaded the 5 sections to read later and the web address is UNEP.org, That’s close to UNDP.org which our Helen is in charge of.
Is there a connection?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The climate change high priests will claim all the glory when the sea does not rise. “It was our actions that saved the world”
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Kris,
People have been talking about climate change as a result of excess greenhouse gases long before Al Gore was talking about it.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
newsflash:
The sea levels ceased rising and the earth began to heal last year, when the Bamster was elected. God’s truth. He said so himself.
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I can push up 130Kg 20 times without stopping but then I’m a fat old fart.
Don’t sell yourself short little guy- according to wikipedia you’re pushing more than the top category in olympic weightlifting!
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Ryan Sproull 5:16 pm,
Perhaps, but he embodies everything I hate about the AGW high priests. Plus his name lends itself so well, don’t you think?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“I’ve come up with a generic ‘name’ for the Global Warming, sorry, Climate Change high priests: Algoreans.”
When the faithfull copulate do they practice the Algorythm method?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
You need more corrections DPF, because the original article doesn’t say that the 6-7m rise will happen in 5-10 years:
They’re related in the sense that people think that the ice cap acts to reflect sunlight, whereas the absence of the ice cap would mean that the sea absorbs the sun’s rays and heats the planet quicker. So the absence of one – which wouldn’t raise sea levels because it’s floating ice – could lead to the knock-on effect of the other two. Greenland and West Antarctica melting would raise sea levels, because it’s land ice.
But nowhere in the article does Gore suggest that this rise of 6-7m would occur in a decade or less – only that the risk of the north cap disappearing would happen in 5-10 years.
I have no idea why he said Winter though. Maybe he was reading from the Australasian version of his speech.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Without defending Mr Gore, it does seem to be quite a shocking series of misquotes from Mr Wishart here.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn.
Just Photoshop the maps to suit the agenda.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
It does have a certain Algorean sound to it.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Article the First:
Kiwiblog’s David Farrar quoted Investigate Magazine’s Ian Wishart quoting Climate Depot’s Marc Morano quoting Arab news agency Maktoob reporting a speech made by Al Gore; thereby proving the ability of the Right-wingosphere to play Chinese whispers, (and the benefit of reading Arab news sites.)
Article the Second:
Figures quoted by the Right-wingosphere when rubbishing people they don’t like may be out by a factor of ten, but don’t let that get in the way of a good jeer:
Quoting http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm Gore said if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment.
“Greenland and West Antarctica are such massive amounts of ice each one of would lead to a six to seven metre increase in sea level if it were to melt. And both West Antarctica and Greenland are beginning to melt,” he said.
/quote.
Ryan Sproull:
Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are of course not floating. He doesn’t appear to go into the veracity of theories/observations that they are melting though…
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
RRM, I’ve been banned from the Standard and moderated at Red Alert because I’m too right wing apparently. Yet it was me who first drew Mr Farrar’s attention to Mr Wishart’s misquote, which promptly ended any opportunity of chinese whispers. Maybe you should check your own reporting standards before you criticise others.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
And if a comet the size of Tasmania hit the earth all life would be wiped out.
Or any other number of inane suggestions.
Gee I get sick of having idiots like Gore insult my intelligence!
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
With all the exaggeration that
Al Gore seems to excel at
Normal people would have great difficulty
Knowing what is truth and what is
Exaggeration does he
Really understand climate change or is there another name for him.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
you’re the ‘unsult to intelligence’..you cretinous ‘i’ve got a special friend in the sky’ fundamentalist/fantasist fucken moron..
and using wishart as a source..?
really..?
so..it all boils down..to the fact that gore was not talking shit..
and is supported by the 2009 report..(not the 2007 one..you must update..!..dpf..!..eh..?..)
but..scoff on..!..fools,,!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Yeah Johnboy,
All Algoreans are masturbators of the first order.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“i’ve got a special friend in the sky’
I have no doubts you have phool , rub the bong and the stoner genie spins your neurons again and again.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Phool obviously missed his mid-afternoon toke.
… and at the end of the day, phool, we’ll see who’s scoffing …
The phool has said in his heart there is no God … [Ps 14:1]
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
‘All Algoreans are masturbators of the first order.”
Yup you have to be a wanker (or a phool who believes in wankers) to think that a power bill like this is helping save the planet.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=…&id=5072659
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“the phool has said in his heart ..there is no climate change’..(phil 15.3
“..a foolish man..which built his house upon the sand..” matthew..42.44..
check..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“RRM, I’ve been banned from the Standard and moderated at Red Alert because I’m too right wing apparently.”
So much for all your school teacher style advice to Redbaiter.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Sigh. Yes, that’s what happens when Arab news services initially translate. The original version did say 67 metres, and although we all had fun with it on the day (the warmists didn’t seem to have a sense of humour and ignored the “appears” and “seems to” hints by taking it very seriously), I doubt many believed Gore had genuinely picked a 67 metre sea level increase.
Even so, on current trends I don’t think he’s got a snowball’s chance in hell of being ice free in the Arctic at summer in a decade, and those who think otherwise should heed the warnings about stupid statements being made to scare people that I blogged on here: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/10/journalists-bloggers-lobbyists-slammed-by-climate-scientists-for-distortions.html
Al ‘Pollo Loco’ Gore should take note.
And the best estimates of Greenland icecap melt suggest it would take a thousand years to raise sea levels by 7 metres.
Still, the good news is Air Con has just been picked up by a major US publisher for a full North American release, so an updated version will be released soon compiling the latest discoveries since April.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
philu 6:28 pm,
So phool, which one are you?
The one who hears and doeth, or the one who hears and doeth not?
If the latter, then it is you who has built on the sand, and is the phool.
And global warming or not, it is you who will be ‘washed away’.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“check..!”
phool – check the crack in the bong.
Bishop 4 mate!!
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Poor phool poor phool, where yuh goin to hide
Paula and Winz will soon be at your side
Poor phool poor phool come in from outer space
Paula and Winz will soon be on your case
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“Still, the good news is Air Con has just been picked up by a major US publisher for a full North American release, so an updated version will be released soon compiling the latest discoveries since April.”
Wow, you’re going to print a complete retraction of the crap you wrote in the original? Nice to know like you can make money off being wrong again, and again, and again… eh? With your qualifications you’re set for life.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I don’t think Al Gore is giving up any time soon.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
You will be safe Phil. Bennet and winz will do what they have always done. SFA. Its all noise just like the rest of the clatter from Wgtn.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
It looks like Copenhagen is on a road to nowhere anyway.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
From your link Fletch:
‘What ever happens, if the folly is continued or not, the next twenty years could be called “the new age of carbon.” If the UK really intends to cut CO 2 emissions by 34% till 2022, the UK would need to build in the next 6 years the equivalent of 30 new nuclear power stations. The telling comment of the (Labour) chairman of the “Climate Change Committee” of the House of Commons: “Well beyond our political capacity to deliver”.
More oil, gas and coal will be burned than ever before – and carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise. Renewables can’t and won’t deliver the scale of energy needed for a rising world population. For the time being only fossil fuels and nuclear power will be able to deliver the necessary energy.”
Dear dear dear what a disaster perhaps we will grow to love the smell of plutonium on our breaths before to long!
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Half a millimeter per year?
Doubt I’ll rush to sell the beach house then.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
There’s some massive FAIL going on over at Kiwiblog. Farrar’s got this new green-bashing post up where he breathlessly mocks Al Gore for saying sea levels could rise by 67 metres because of climate change.
screaming headline at the sub strandard…they are whipping themselves into a frenzy…
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Basically DPF is an illiterate fool on climate change…
says that cot case Iprent…oh so nasty..
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 pm
They’ve not worked it out yet… silly commies. DPF is using this post to see how much credibility Wishart has amongst the non-socialists who’d automatically reject anything from Wishart because, he’s, well, Wishart…
Thank you for taking part in the survey.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I always thought that if the Arctic sea ice melted sea levels would drop. Ice takes up a greater volume of space then liquid water. If floating Arctic ice melted the space taken up by that ice would be less and thus the sea level would be lower but maybe Al knows more then me.
Bevan you never know perhaps it would be wise to put the beach house on the market and what sort of price would you want for a water logged house
And where is Shonkey and his sidekick Smith, they should be right on to this, probably to busy planning how they can piss up a few billion dollars in EFS taxes to realise they’re brought a lemon.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“and using wishart as a source..?
really..?”
The ONLY, yes ONLY …
thing that the silly little mapgie has ever got right..
Folks, if you set your sail to that wind – well good luck.
Welcome to the short memory department
I think I need to lie down.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Good point bob almost but not quite right. Anything that floats in water displaces its own weight of water so if the Arctic ice melted it will cause a very slight sea level rise. The portion of the ice that is under water will melt and cause no sea level rise (in fact a drop as you say ice is less dense than water) and the only rise will be caused by the portion of the ice above water say approx 12.5 % of the total ice volume. Hardly going to drown all the Islands in the Pacific. Still it keeps the climate change believers in work.
Now if the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melted then they would make a substantial difference in sea level because they are not already in the ocean so would add significantly to its volume. Of course that would be nothing that hasn’t happened many times before in the history of the planet. It would just be cause for great excitement amongst the newcomers to earth—-us.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“..Doubt I’ll rush to sell the beach house then..”
and how are the insurance premiums..?
you can’t even get coverage for ocean damage..
can you..?
i wonder why that is..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Johnboy
More punctuation. That’s a big part of his secret recipe for failure.
Remember, it doesn’ have to make any sense at all.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
the ‘rock’ is the science-consensus on global warming..based on science..solid as..
the sand is your ‘denial-opinion’..based on nothing but..’your opinion’..as inconsequential as..
you are such a fool..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
you fuckwit
2 days ago you said “all quotes are bullshit”
DO try and keep up
comedy classic litle mini magpie munter
ilhahp(wor.co.nz)
whoar: celebrating sweet fuck all …
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Fuck I have just re-read my last post and just realised that the logic is as faulty as the IPPC dipshits! I will have to revise my computer modelling again.
In fact of course the sea level will not rise or fall at all if all the Arctic ice melts but stay exactly the same because the ice displaces its own weight of water so the approx 12.5% or 5.0% or whatever that sticks up like the top of the iceberg will make up for the higher density of water compared to ice when the ice melts. Eureka!!!
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Did anyone see the weather on One News tonight? October was the coldest October for 67 years, and seven of the ten months this year have been colder than average.
Anyone for Global Warming?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I’m just parking this issue with JK and Nick. I have total faith in their judgment. You guys should too. Where’s Rodney on this these days?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
For something that will really throw you into a frenzy if you’re a warmist, try this: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/29/physicist-howard-haydens-one-letter-disproof-of-global-warming-claims/
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Just a little something that Lord Monckton has spotted, that is more than a little disconcerting:
The draft Treaty of Copenhagen, to be signed in mid-December 2009, would create an unelected world government with direct power over all financial and trading markets, and direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Treaty. The word “government” actually appears in the Treaty as the first of three purposes of a huge, new, supranational bureaucratic entity that will have the power to require wealthier nations to redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in imagined reparation for imaginary “climate debt”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Good one Luc. Clever. Chortle chortle.
And the other parking alternatives are .. Goff, Cosgrove, Cunners, Barker, Hughes, King …??
No doubt about their experience really, is there?
Have another savvy you clever little thing. Why I expect that you even have a degree!
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
The Greenland ice shelf is melting quickly as is the North Polar and South Polar ice caps; the cold water this is liberating is having no effect whatsoever on sea levels or climate. Everything is fine and we can look forward to a great summer on the beach.
The rumours about “climate change” were started by the Chinese as a way of selling more toothpaste to Americans. It isnt worth going into detail over the economic machinations of this process but the upshot of it was (incidental to its purpose) a wonderful proliferation of consumer spending in the West (through the fear of impending demise) . So the Chinese have really started pushing the idea to keep their dubious form of capitalism at the forefront. AND ITS WORKING.
So buy New Zealand made and ignore all of that bogus propoganda.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Ross – do you have a reference for that? It is truely scary …
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Guys, if you want to see the most conclusive proof of the nonsense of global warming in the comfort of your own computer (complete with loads of laughs at those evil lying lefties), check out Lord Monckton’s latest speech on You Tube.
This one speech has single-handedly turned around US thinking on the issue and will make Obama’s dream of a Copenhagen Treaty (really just a smokescreen for an odious communistic world government) impossible.
It is Monckton, not Gore or Obama, who should be awarded a Nobel Prize. The man’s a genius in the craft of simple, clear explanation.
Go Google him now – sorry I don’t know how to do the link thingy.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
David, you blog a lot, you blog often, you blog quickly. All reasonable excuses for making an error. Odd that you’d be so quick to declaim Gore… still, what’s with the others, the climate deniers. Ansell and co. Not to worry, they’re time’s almost up… tick tick tick John, clearly your brain’s atrophied…
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
We just had the coldest october for 25 years.
I’m tired of cold winters. We do not seem to have any warming at all…bring it on I say…
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
The quote was from http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php, but I don’t have the original announcement of the finding by Monckton. Just Google Monckton, governance and Copenhagen.
I have known that the ‘elite’ have had plans for World Government since reading “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”, a best-seller from 1972. But it is only a few years since it has been obvious that the UN was going to use a fake climate crisis to boost it’s power.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Furthermore, as this scam is finally proven beyond any doubt to be a socialist/red-green lie (watch the Monckton video), it is time to draw up lists of all the warm-mongers who have been peddling this hugely damaging lie.
Ideally we should put them on trial for economic sabotage. Failing that, we should at least ensure that these people are permanently barred from ever again holding any kind of public office.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Link is here: Lord Christopher Monckton warns of the United Nations Climate Change Treaty.
Climate Change(tm) has nothing to do with climate, care of our earth or sustainability. It’s a lever to create an unelected communist world government. A must watch.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Furthermore, as this scam is finally proven beyond any doubt to be a socialist/red-green lie (watch the Monckton video), it is time to draw up lists of all the warm-mongers who have been peddling this hugely damaging lie.
That’d be the IPCC… John, step away from the keyboard and back to the wine-bar…
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Always a pleasure to be abused by you, Paul Williams.
Now would you care to look at the Monckton speech and tell us what’s wrong with his facts? You are interested in facts, aren’t you?
In particular, I draw your attention to the eleven separate theoretical predictions by supposed UN experts, all of which predicted that greenhouse gases would be trapped at the top of the atmosphere and make temperatures warmer.
Demolishing those eleven computer predictions is one graph using – shock, horror – actual figures for the last 20 years, compiled by the world’s leading meteorologist, Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT.
Lindzen’s graph proves that the exact opposite happens – the greenhouse gases do not get trapped. They escape the atmosphere just as they always have. Instead of 7 degrees of warming, we have 1 degree, which is perfectly manageable and on the whole beneficial.
Facts. Not theories. For daring to prefer facts, Paul says my brain has atrophied. Hmmm.
Those who don’t want to watch 95 minutes of the most detailed demolition of the scam that you’re ever going to see, just be aware that Monckton is the man whom Al Gore is too scared to debate.
Why would that be, Paul?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
wait, you guys only have one source for this? if it’s to be credible i want to see cross references and works cited
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
If you want more references:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance
This includes Jacque Chirac’s mention of ‘global governance’ about 9 years ago, and Al Gore’s use of the term a couple of months ago.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
You may like to sign this petition urging Al ‘the science is settled’ Gore to debate Christopher ‘No it isn’t and I’m an actual scientist’ Monckton.
http://www.petitiononline.com/agdgw/petition.html
It was Monckton who took Gore to court in England and persuaded a judge to ban An Inconvenient Truth from being shown to schoolchildren unless nine highly inconvenient lies in it were corrected.
(Monckton actually identified 35 lies, but didn’t have enough time to put them all to the judge.)
The thing I like about him is that he doesn’t beat about the bush when dealing with socialist liars. He just calls them what they are: liars and cowards.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
John, I’m not abusing you, I’m encouraging you to move to another point in your life’s development.
I’m across the breadth of views John, you’re not disclosing anything new… sorry to burst your bubble.
I’m still somewhat persuaded by the IPCC but don’t let that stop you tilting at windmills.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Here’s Monckton’s full 95 minute speech, where he lays out his whole scientific case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Getstaffed’s link is just the last 4 minutes, where he warns of the UN plot to set up a world bureaucracy with the power to compel gullible developed nations like ours to shovel vast amounts of wealth to developing countries in the name of a crisis they invented for the purpose – global warming.
The attached slides are a treat too.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I’ve seen both, but I really like the massively understated four minute fireside chat where he warns about a comunist take-over… fantastic stuff, where’s his 1900 number… oh and Tamaki should upgrade, Bishop ain’t shit to Lord.
John, you buy this? Really? You not near the corridors of power are you?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Lots of smoke, but no fire Paul.
If you have criticisms of the content of Moncktons speech (flawed analysis, unsupported assertions etc) then let’s hear them.
So far you’ve just trudged down the old ‘deflect and denigrate’ path.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Are you f’real? I’ve not got a waistcoat.
Hell, read any one of the last few IPCC reports and then lets talk.
Honestly, where do you come from. Even the most conservative, commercialised, shareholder-value exposed, organisations on God’s green earth accept the IPCC view… but then there’s this bloke and a promise that it’s all ok and you can do whatever you want and it’s all ok.
Look, simple as this. I live here in reality. In reality, we’ve accepted climate change is partly man-made and a bit of a worry. We thought we’d do something about it. It’s not easy and it’ll likely disrupt a fair chunk of what we do but then, we’ve had to make changes in the past and generally we’ve managed (think WWII).
So, lets have the countries that have a bit to spare do a bit more so that the one’s that don’t, they can develop a little but in a reasonable way…
I’m not going to trade references with you or anyone else for that matter. It’s a ridiculous distraction. If you think this isn’t urgent and damn important all I ask is that you don’t breed. Join a club, smoke a cigar, vote however the hell you want, just when you pop off this mortal coil, frankly, I’ll not need worry further…
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Not a single fact you’d care to refute Paul, despite being ‘across the breadth of views’?
I’ll make it easy for you – only two minutes of Monckton this time – explaining why it will take 33 years of no cars to produce just a one degree difference in temperature (and hence why all the ETSs in Christendom cannot hope to make the slightest spec of difference).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-LNixR0cW4&NR=1
And yes Paul, I am persuaded by the theory that global warming is part of a socialist plan to create a world government.
Let’s put it another way…
Are you seriously suggesting that Helen Clark and Barack Obama and Gordon Brown and the rest of the Socialist International set would NOT want a socialist world government if they had the chance – or that the ‘climate crisis’ does not present them with that chance (because of the gullibility of even supposedly conservative leaders like John Key)?
But first things first – and that is to decide whether Monckton’s argument holds water. I say it does. You say it doesn’t. Why?
Less of the smug superiority and more facts this time please. I know you can argue cogently when you want to.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 pm
So Paul, what you seem to be saying in your angry, incoherent way is that you believe the IPCC because it’s the UN (those wonderfully accurate folks who told us that 150 million of us would die of swine flu).
And you don’t believe Monckton because he’s only one person, and a toff to boot, albeit a toff with a heap of proof that the IPCC is just another bunch of lying socialists.
If you think that’s silly, offer some arguments, cos your abuse ain’t working.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
So Paul, the IPCC is your altar? Fair enough I guess. So here’s a sample of the http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml” rel=”nofollow”>integrity of their output, on which you base your faith.
Two extracts:
.. and ..
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:55 pm
John, here’s an idea. Let’s convince Key to set up NZ as a refugee nation for wealthy innovators, change agents and scientific geniuses once it becomes clear that the Copenhagen Treaty is the foundation of a wealth-sapping socialist world government. That’s if we don’t sign the full treaty of course. If we do, then I’m off somewhere that hasn’t!
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Gracious, I’ve hooked the big fish… incoherent? John, seriously we know from earlier exchanges that’s not the case. But no, I’m not going to fisk every bilious utterance from this chap… it’s meaningless and he barely rates a mention outside these forums. I recently attended a forum in Canberra which reviewed, amongst other things, some of the IPCC recommendations (though it didn’t do the fundamental science). From a policy perspective, there’s more than enough certainty and it truly beggars belief that there’s a group who want to fight this… innit funny that they do it in blogs.
More fool you. Socialist plan… I mised the memo clearly. I’m sure Ian Wishart’s got the back-catalogue but…
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 am
Interesting data here showing some details of the way public opinion is going in America
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-global-warming-opinion
At this rate it won’t be long before even the left will be giving up on this bullshit
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
yeah that’s right enmess, a survey’ll fix the climate…. phew.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Yeah, I’ve got the back catalogue Paul, and Monckton plonked it on his website:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/seriously_inconvenient_truth.html
Follow the link and click on the PDF extract.
You might also want to read this cover story from the May issue of Investigate:
http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2009/07/global_governan.html
There is no question the UN wants a quasi world government under its aegis to be established in response to the global warming scare. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, concedes the same point in his Glenn Beck interview this week.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 am
Paul IS right, this is so serial people!! manbearpig is real, he is real I tell you. We must find and kill manbearpig before its to late, don’t you care about the children? Why don’t you care about the children!!
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 am
This is incredible – Wishart just dismisses an almighty journalistic balls up as “a bit of fun” and poked at those who didn’t share “the humour”. If he is that casual about major mistakes it doesn’t do much for his credibility. Especially when no attempt has been made to correct his original blog.
This indicates that Wishart is willing to pick up on anything that backs up his entrenched position on climate change, no matter how ridiculous it obviously is. He is either blindly gullible or blatantly dishonest.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am
Pete, Pete…. never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 am
wow..!..ansell..
you are really ‘out there’ in tinfoil-hat-territory’..aren’t you..?
‘global conspiracies’..eh..?
anselll..reality check:..most humans/pollies can’t organise a piss-up in a brewery..
let alone..fucken ‘global socialist conspiracies’..eh..?
‘woof-woof..!’..eh..?
(you are fucken knee-slappingly funny..eh..?..)
do you check under your bed before retiring at night..?..for any ‘reds’ that may be lurking..?
you’d better start..if you’re not..you can never be too careful..they are so cunning..these ‘global conspirators’..eh..?
the only global conspiracies are rightwing pricks manipulating stockmarkets/’bail-outs’..and looting countries..
how do they communicate..?..these ‘global-conspiracy-people’..
do they have their own super-secret-internet..?..or something..?
do tell..!..i’m sure you ‘know’..eh..?
thanks for the chuckles..eh..?
and..didn’t you used to be something in act..?
(psstt..!..(sotto voice):..’do they know about the conspiracy too..?’..)
brilliant..!
it’s monckton vs. a global scientific-consensus..
and you’re plumping for monckton..eh..?
right oh..!..carry on..!
and..
,,bless you..!..eh..?
(laughter is so good for the soul..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
That and the rest is a pretty funny post. How do the socialists plan to carry out this plan AND censor Kiwiblog?! They are very powerful.
Monckton has a degree in journalism, and is a Lord, don’t forget.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
is sue bradford a member..?
and..
why haven’t i been told..?
was it something i said..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
and i reckon wishart must make the sort-list for ‘bullshit-excuse-of-the-year’..
for his..’it was only a joke..!..what..?..you didn’t get it..?’..reason for printing/claiming gore had said 67 metres..
it’s up there with ‘rodneys’..’i'm thinking through my dick!’ reason for his recent trough-wallow..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
“[Wishart] is either blindly gullible or blatantly dishonest.”
I’m going for “blatantly dishonest”, the “blindly gullible” apologise and print proper retractions.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Andrew W
the leopard does not change its spots; nor the mapgie its feathers …
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Still waiting for some coherent argument from the Left, and probably will be till Hell freezes over (or should that be boils over?).
They can’t think straight, and (to quote Lord Monckton) they don’t do simple, but they certainly can organise. Evidence: Soviet Russia, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc.
At the other end of the same end of the spectrum we have control freaks like Clark.
And not much further to the right, we have Key, who is either gullible or deliberately trying to wreck the economy he is charged with protecting, by imposing massive taxes to shovel still more of our wealth to the likes of Russia and the corrupt basket cases of Africa.
Like Al Gore, neither he nor Nick Smith has never responded to many invitations to refute with facts the facts sent to him in a letter by the same Lord Monckton (the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher).
Like so many things in politics, the truth in the climate debate is the opposite of the way it seems. Public opinion has been warped by skilled liars working from the lefty handbook, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. (Google it and be amazed.)
Alinsky devotees (who include Obama and Hillary Clinton) have an incredibly cynical attitude to ethics and truth, ignoring it whenever it’s inconvenient. The title of Al Gore’s film is thus richly ironic.
One of Alinsky’s main rules is to use ridicule in the absence of facts, hence the efforts of Paul Williams and philu on this thread.
Lord Mockton has emerged as the most articulate ambassador of the sceptics’ side in the video medium. He is therefore the easiest to access for those who cannot or will not read.
Getstaffed: sounds like you’ve been reading Atlas Shrugged – a great book and a great idea, but not one that would be embraced by our current (let alone previous) leadership.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Ansell, shouldn’t you have ‘gone Galt’ and scurried off to a gulch somewhere to wait for society to crumble once we’re all deprived of your graphic design and race-baiting skills?
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“Lord Mockton has emerged as the most articulate ambassador of the sceptics’ side ”
Are you mocking Monckton? Has he become the Palin of climate change?
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
John Ansell said – “Still waiting for some coherent argument from the Left”
The response you got from Danyl above is about the best you can ever expect.
Alinsky’s rule #5
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“..One of Alinsky’s main rules is to use ridicule in the absence of facts, hence the efforts of Paul Williams and philu on this thread…”
so i am part of the great socialist conspiracy..?
(once again..!)..’why did nobody tell me’..?..(i must check that pile of memos..)
ansell..you are very much like redbaiter..
neither of you understand that you are cartoonish-figures..
and hysterically funny with it..?
there is no conspiracy darling..!
it is all in your little head..eh..?
and..
“..Still waiting for some coherent argument from the Left.”
how about global scientific consensus..?
won’t that do..?..for now..?
what’s that..?..
you have that ‘qualified-journalist’ monckton..?
anything else..?
(whoar..!..you really are the comedy gift that just keeps on giving..eh..?..
more..!..more..!..i say..!
(give us some more of the conspiracy-secrets you know..eh..?
we are all on the edge of our seats here..
(fucken-a-brilliant..!..)
and ‘atlas shrugged’..eh..?
it’s always ‘atlas shrugged’..
the cherry on the cake..?..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
philu, Forget all of that. Just concentrate on making sure that your kid doesn’t end up a drug atrophied, criminal, parasite-on-the-working-people like you are.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
ansell..!..it’s yr wingman..angus..!
got any ‘conspiracy-secrets’ for us..?..darling..?
and..how is the general mood in the ‘association of conspicuous troughers party”..
mm..??
some of you will be enjoying ‘the fall of rodney’..?
won’t you/no doubt..?
my understanding is that your little cult is particularly schism-riven..?
and roger ‘it’s my holiday..!..and you’ll pay for it!’ douglas..eh..?
the ol’ pig-farmer hasn’t forgotten how to trough..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Oh hell, I try to be polite and constructive, but the plain ridiculousness of persisting with arguing against the scientific consensus is just too much for me to indulge. I know there’s disputes and I know some are important, but they’re marginal and this is a distraction.
If you believe the IPCC is part of some global conspiracy to defraud the wealthy their hard-earned gold, you’re as silly as the creationists.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“..drug atrophied, criminal, parasite-on-the-working-people..”
is that the bankers/elites you are taking about there..?
snuffling their drug of choice..(cocaine..)..while they fuck the rest of us over..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“..If you believe the IPCC is part of some global conspiracy to defraud the wealthy their hard-earned gold, you’re as silly as the creationists…”
ansell..have you met kris k yet..?
i mean..he’s got ‘a special friend in the sky’..
and you see conspirators everywhere..
(you could swap tales/stories..eh..?.. )
you could ‘look for patterns’..together..
(awww..!!….it’d be ‘nice’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Phil, don’t you take astrology seriously?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
slightly more seriously than socialist-conspiracies..
(mm!!!..’patterns..!’..)
define ‘seriously’..
do i think certain people are very much the way they are reputed to be..?
yep..!..seems that way..
(can i explain that..?..no..!..)
i’d be a bit suss going any further than that..
and as for rushing to the newspaper for a daily prediction..?
nah..!
but hey..!..kris has ‘a special friend in the sky’..
and silly ol’ ansell..sees conspirators everywhere..
and knows..he must be ever-vigilant..
always ‘on’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Seems on a bit of a par to me.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Atlas Shrugged has sold 300,000 copies so far this year – not bad for a 52 year old book.
A Washington Times article entitled ‘Why Ayn Rand is Hot Again’ accounts for the resurgence as follows:
‘Readers and pundits alike look at America and see a world scarily reminiscent of Rand’s government-choked dystopia in “Atlas.” It’s a world with a struggling economy where political pull matters more than success in the free market, where the government blithely takes over huge transportation industries.’
Last time I looked, Whitcoulls Lambton Quay had copies. It’s a book that changes lives.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
mmm!!
rand..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/right-wingers-believe-ayn-rands-every-word-but-they-forget-she-wrote-fiction-ayn-rand-was-an-immigrant-from-russia-who-worked-in-hollywood-as-a-screenwriterironically-her-followers-nowadays-tend-to-ha/
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I think your problem Paul, is that you haven’t displayed that you know the first thing about climate change on this thread.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
i think your problem sonny..is that you haven’t displayed that you know the first thing about..anything really..ever..
(you do know you are running kneck and kneck with star-bored..for the ‘thickest plank in the timberyard award’.
eh..?
keep up the good work..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
That’s just one of the global warming conspiracy theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
They can’t all be right.
What about the big business conspiracy theory? Are they competing conspiracies? One world government is as unlikely to happen as unfettered private enterprise leading to one mega company owning the world.
The US can’t even control one backward country they invaded. The UN is limited in what it can do because of different political forces.
I suppose conspiracy crap sells a few books to the gullible.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Pete, if a signed Copenhagen Treaty gave rise to an un-elected quasi-government that could direct the affairs of a sovereign nation then I’d say you’d be foolish to dismiss concerns as ‘conspiracy crap’. Of could this could be nonsense. Let’s just sit back and take our chances shall we?
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
We’ve seen on this thread what amateur lefties resort to when faced with inconvenient questions.
Now here’s a video of their hero Al Gore in the same position.
Recently, for the first time since An Inconvenient Truth came out four years ago, Al allowed questions from environmental journalists.
Now he knew this wasn’t likely to be a problem, since environmental journalists are not known for their probing questions of fellow environmentalists.
But sadly for Al, the maker of the new film Not Evil Just Wrong, an accredited environmental journalist, was in the audience.
And he reminded Al about the British judge’s finding that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine most inconvenient untruths. And he also asked him whether he had corrected those untruths (as the judge said he had to before it could be shown to children).
Have a look at how the Gore team shut down the debate…
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/225-al-gore-a-the-death-of-journalism
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
I’ve watched the full 93min of Lord Monckton’s Lecture.
Wow! He systematically exposes a litany of IPCC’s lies with evidence of data tampering, selective sampling, blocked peer reviews and pure fiction.
I’d recommend this to anyone with even a passing interest in the Climate Change debate.
If you paid money to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” then why not spend 93mins listening to a comprehensive, factual and evidential disassembly of the Climate Change myth.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Is Monckton the best posterboy available?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lord_Monckton
Glen Beck fact checked and pointed out that Monckton had told two lies in his dire prophesies of a world government takeover.
John Bolton, George Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, say Monckton was too extreme. “I don’t think we should overstate the consequences,” Bolton said.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
No moral logic in Rand, philu?
In case you missed the moral of Atlas Shrugged (and I can’t really imagine you poring through 1100 pages of ethical philosophy, so I doubt whether you’ve read it) it is this:
Risk-takers and job creators who give excellent service to others by providing the goods and services we take for granted are entitled to be fairly rewarded for their effort.
If they are denied their fair reward – if the government and people just see them as ‘rich pricks’ to be bled dry – we should not be surprised if they shut their factories and steel mills and railroads and walk away.
The book paints a picture of what would happen to the rest of us if they did that.
Yes, it is fiction – so far!
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Pete, forget the attempted character assignation of Lord Monckton. It’s beneath you.
Did you watch the video? Yes?
You would have seen evidence of the atmospheric cooling, of the sea cooling, of 4 polar bears who died in a storm (and the population is increasing).
You would have seen NASA imagery of an expanding Arctic ice cap, of selected use of datasets, of the banning of peer review and the outright fabrication of evidence – including amateur ‘doctoring’ of numbers in a published table.. where the totals then failed to add up.
The list goes on.
And we’re being asked to cede elements of our sovereign taxation policy to a soon-to-be-formed, unelected quasi-government on this basis?
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
wot..!
john bolton ..perhaps the most rabid extremist in public office in the bush admin..
thinks monckton is too ‘extreme’..?
fuck..!
i am impressed..!
ansell and them are hanging with/talking up the real-deal loony-tunes..eh..?
‘monckton..he’s our man..!..’
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
UM, what are Monckton’s climate credentials? I am having trouble finding them. Even news is hard to fond outside the hard right blogs.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Fox has little on him. This:
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
go on dickwad..!
walk away..!
(and..are you serious..?
that’s what you fucken idjits get from rand..?
that ..just ‘cos you make fucken widjits of some sort..
that you are some sort of fucken elite..?
you have fucked the world..you moron..!
your mantras of justification of personal greed..and fuck everyone else/the world..
have got us to where we are now..einstein..!
and that is your definition of the ‘moral logic’ of rand..?
and it is not ‘ethical philosophy’..
it is soap opera/work of fiction..
and about as sound a philosophical foundation as the sci-fi books of l ronhubbard..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Quardle oodle squawk choke gulp
Phil the magpie said.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
You are mistaken. What you see as ‘personal greed’ is in fact a sense of responsibility to work and provide for ones family, and the families of employees. It’s called having dignity, self-respect. Foreign concepts I expect.
If you want to see personal greed, take a look in the mirror. The person looking back is greedily consuming the resources around him and contributing nothing to the society that supports him.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Your latent leftie DNA is well worked up over this Pete. Deflect, denigrate… C’mon you’re bigger than that.
Watch the video and assess the veracity of the evidence for yourself. As to his credentials, I’d say he’s more than a match for Al Gore. Just a guess.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
It’s not as good as his fact-packed speech that getstaffed links to, but here’s Monckton’s closing keynote address to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change:
Where are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency–those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds?
The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth remains unalterable.
The Forces of Darkness, with their “global warming” chimera, came perilously close to ending the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. They almost ushered in a new Dark Age. Yet they have failed. Why? They have failed because you, here, have had the courage to face them down, to confront their falsehoods, and to nail their lies.
The Age of Light and Reason shall not die. Dylan Thomas wrote, “Do not go gentle to that last goodnight: Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” You have not raged in vain. The world is not cooking: It is cooling. Every opinion poll–even those conducted by the bed-wetters themselves–shows that global public opinion is cooling as fast as the global climate.
In one recent survey, “global warming” came at the very bottom of a list of political and environmental concerns, immediately behind the need to clean up dog-poop on the streets. Why? Because dog-poop is a real environmental problem. “Global warming” is not. The correct policy response to the non-problem of climate change is to have the courage to do nothing.
We, the people, are no longer afraid of “global warming.” We are fed up to the back teeth of hearing about it. We are bored by it. And the bed-wetters know it. Their ever-more-outlandish predictions are a measure of their blind panic. The Dr. Strangelove of NASA, in the latest of a series of ever-more-desperate attempts to flog the dead horse of climatic apocalypse, recently wrote that sea level is about to rise by 246 feet, “und anyvun zat disagrees viz me vill be arrested und put on trial for high crimes against humanidy und nature.”
When Hansen’s political ally and financial beneficiary Al Gore had only predicted one-twelfth that amount of imminent sea-level rise, Mr. Justice Burton said in the London High Court, “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.” But then, Al Gore knew that all along. In 2005, the year he said sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet, he bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis tower, San Francisco–just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf. The only danger to sea level is from all those bed-wetters.
Now, if we’re going to exaggerate, let’s exaggerate properly. Sea level is going to rise not by Gore’s 20 feet, not by Hansen’s 246 feet, but by 2,640 feet. Half a mile. You heard it here first. There goes Andy Revkin of The New York Times, dashing to the telephone to tell them to hold the front page.
All lands not submerged beneath the inexorably rising waves will bake and wither under permanent year-‘round drought. Yea, and the very same lands will smother and drown under permanent year-‘round floods. And plagues of locusts. And pestilences. And famines. And brimstone and fire. And boils and pustules, yea, verily, and other things that pullulate and fester and sound nasty enough to get big headlines and bigger research grants. (I see now why these bed-wetters exaggerate on such an outrageous scale. It’s a lot of fun.)
Dr. Strangelove has published a peer-reviewed paper–so it must be true–saying 60 percent of all species will soon be flung into extinction. It won’t be 60 percent. It will be 326 percent. Whaddaya mean, we can’t extinguish more than 100 percent? You heard the U.S. President. Yes We Can. How do we know we can? Because the IPCC says.
“Because the IPCC says.” That pathetic phrase is nothing less than an instrument of political abdication on the part of our democratically elected leaders. There was once an androgynous crooner who called himself “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince.” In Britain, Her Majesty’s Opposition, “The Party Formerly Known As Conservative,” has stated, in the person of its chief of policy: “We cannot question what the scientists say.” Yes we can.
When the Founding Fathers of this great nation met in that hot summer long ago in the City of Brotherly Love to craft the noble Constitution of the United States, they were building their great nation upon the solid foundation of your Declaration of Independence. Independence! This winter, if the United States signs up to the Treaty of Copenhagen, her independence–and our freedom–will be gone forever. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be turning in his grave.
Last year the President of the Czech Republic told this Conference, “It’s not about climatology–it’s about freedom.” This year the President of the European Union told us the same. Two statesmen with one message.
Let me ask you this question–and it is not a rhetorical question, I want to hear your answer loud and clear. Do we want to be governed not by representatives whom we elect and hold to account, but by the technocratic-centralist wannabe-world-government of the IPCC?
Do we want to pay a single red cent more of our taxes to fund the “global warming” boondoggle?
Are we terrified by the spectre of sea level rising 246 feet?
Do we expect sea level to rise this century by more than about 1 foot?
Do we want to see the bed-wetting liars, hucksters, shysters, fraudsters, and racketeers ever-more-extravagantly rewarded with honors and prizes for their ever-more-extravagant falsehoods, fables, and fictions?
Do we want cap-‘n’-trade?
Do we need carbon taxes?
Do we want to let Joe Bast get away with not organizing another Heartland Conference next year?
You, in this room, have bravely upheld the truth and the scientific method against all manner of lies, threats, sanctions, personal attacks, and entertaining revisions to your CreepyMedia biographies. Because you have not failed or faltered, the Forces of Darkness are now scuttling back into their lairs, there to snivel in the eternal darkness of utter oblivion and CNN.
Divine Providence, unlike the bed-wetters, has a sense of humour. Governor Schwarzenegger–now, there’s an oxymoron for you, or “moron” for short. As soon as Governor Schwarzenegger announced that the science was settled–and how the hell would he know?–two-thirds of California’s citrus crop was destroyed. Were all those oranges and lemons wiped out by drought? Or by forest fires? No, by an exceptionally bitter frost.
Last summer, just as the President of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest taxpayer-funded pressure-group, was telling us, “Global warming is happening now,” global temperatures had already been plunging for nearly seven years, at a rate equivalent to almost 4 Fahrenheit degrees per century. Has your favourite news medium reported that? Probably not. Maybe that’s why the President of the Royal Society didn’t know. He doesn’t get his science from the learned journals. He gets it from the media.
Just as Tony Bliar was announcing on his blog that “global warming is getting worse,” just as Al Gore was testifying before the Senate–during an ice-storm–that we face a “climate crisis,” global temperatures plummeted still more. They have been plummeting at a rate equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century throughout the four years since Gore launched his mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror B-movie. At this rate, by mid-century we shall roasting in a new Ice Age.
Gore no longer dares to publish his supposed “evidence” for “climate crisis,” because he is rightly terrified that we here will pounce on it at once and demonstrate that it is materially, serially, seriously inaccurate–demonstrate its falsity by the dull, outmoded method of reference to the facts, the science, and the data.
When Gore appeared before the Senate a few weeks ago, the hearing was supposed to be public. For it is one of the most ancient and settled principles of parliamentary democracy that the deliberations of those whom we elect, and the testimony that their committees hear, shall be open and visible to all. Yet, with the furtive connivance of Senator Boxer and her politicized snivel servants, the science slides Gore showed to the Senators were kept secret. I and others have asked for them. They are “not available at this time.” And the Senate is “exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.”
Why are those slides “not available at this time”? Because Gore is running scared. Rightly scared. Scared of prosecution for peddling a false prospectus in Generation Investment Management. Neither Gore nor any bed-wetter will any longer dare to debate the science of climate with us or anyone in the light of day. Gore’s speaking contract stipulates that he will not debate, he will not answer unscripted questions, and he will not be interviewed except by journalists acceptable to him. Which journalists are they? The dim ones that don’t know any science, and the prejudiced ones that don’t care. Just about all of them.
Recently four of us in this room were invited to a meeting of Government and opposition leaders and policymakers in Madrid, to debate the science and economics of climate against Al Gore (not a climate scientist); Railroad Engineer Pachauri, the head of the U.N.’s climate science working group (not a climate scientist); Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the U.K. Socialist Government’s joke report on the economics of climate change (not a climate scientist); and the Environment Minister of Spain (not a climate scientist).
All four of us–three climate scientists and I (not a climate scientist) accepted the invitation to debate. All four of them refused. They said they would only come if they could speak on their own, without facing any challenge, any debate, any question, any fact, any inconvenient truth. Not one of them dared to face us. They did not have what in English we should call the cojones.
There was no climate crisis. There is no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis. “Global warming” is not a global crisis. It is a global scientific fraud.
Without you, that blunt truth might have taken far longer to emerge than it has. And delay is fatal. Though lies cannot alter or harm the truth, they can kill our fellow men. The environmental movement is out of control. It is now humankind’s deadliest enemy. In the name of humanity, it must be outlawed. Thirty years ago, the soi-disant “Greens” agitated for DDT to be banned. They killed 40 million people of malaria, most of them children. Eventually, after a third of a century, the WHO at last caved in to humanitarian pressure from me and others and reversed the ban. Dr. Arata Kochi, announcing the end of that murderous ban, said, “Usually in this field politics comes first and science second. Now we must take a stand on the science and the data.” That is what you in this room have so gallantly done. You have taken a stand on the science and the data.
Now the very same soi-disant “Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves.
The prosperity of the West is not only our sustenance. It is also the very lifeblood of the struggling nations of the Third World. If our economies fail, we are inconvenienced, but they die.
In the past year there have been food riots in a dozen major regions, in protest at the doubling of the price of staple food which the World Bank blames almost entirely on the biofuel scam. Has your favourite news medium reported the riots and the mass starvation? Probably not. Has it given our starving fellow-men–our brothers and sisters–the same attention and prominence and column inches and frequency of coverage as it has given to every icicle putatively dribbling in Greenland? Certainly not.
Those who are dying are only black people, poor people, in far-away countries of which we know little, with no voice and no vote. Why should we care? Well, we should care. And we–you and I–we do care. In this debate it is we who hold the moral high ground.
There is no incompatibility between science and religion, as long as religion does not attempt to usurp the realm of science, and as long as science does not become a religion. So I hope that this scientific conference will forgive a Christian if, in a Christian country founded by Christians, he does his duty as the valedictorian by sending you away from this great gathering with a blessing–a blessing that has been spoken in the stone-built village churches of England for longer than anyone can remember. Let it be a tribute to your steadfast courage.
“Go forth into the world in peace;
“Be of good courage;
“Hold fast to that which is good;
“Render to no man evil for evil;
“Strengthen the faint-hearted;
“Support the weak;
“Help the afflicted;
“Honour all men;
“Love and serve the Lord,
“Rejoicing in the power of the Holy Ghost;
“And the blessing of God Almighty,
“The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
“Be upon you and remain with you always. Amen.”
[Atheist Ayn Rand would not have approved of that last bit.]
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
John, unselectively quoting vast tracts of someone else’s views, that’s called spamming mate. You don’t get this media do you?
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Just trying to make it easier for you Paul. But once again I see I have failed to meet your exalted standards.
If you could bear to stoop to my level for a mo, perhaps you could now insert some facts into my atrophied brain so that it might better understand why it is wrong to conclude that Monckton has a better grasp of the climate issue than Al Gore and your sacred IPCC.
Not possessing your deep reserves of intellect, my old brain is getting rather tired of supplying all the evidence, while you have all the fun.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:30 am
“Even so, we find Monckton’s claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it’s impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it’s hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States’ bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton’s rhetoric suggests. ”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/20/christopher-monckton/british-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/
November 4th, 2009 at 5:51 am
The Heartland Institute, a think tank funded in part by energy corporations and also funded by tobacco companies and surprise “denies the health effects of second-hand smoke”, organised the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel to “call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted “consensus” on various aspects of climate change and global warming.”
Speakers included:
Joseph Bas, president of the Heartland Institute. He “studied economics as an undergraduate” at the University of Chicago but did not complete the degree.
Monckton
Bob Carter: In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005, he was described as an “experienced environmental scientist”, but a March 2007 article in the same paper noted that “Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.”
Craig Idso, the Chairman of the Board, founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an Arizona-based global warming skeptics group that has been funded in part by ExxonMobil.
Jeff Kueter, President of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank. In a 2009 essay, former Marshall Institute Executive Director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote that after he commenced with the group in September 2001 “certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn’t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.”
Ben Lieberman is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Heritage Foundation. While the Foundation has contributed many ideas and positions on contemporary public policy, it is best known for the support generated by its foreign policy analysts in the 1980s and early 1990s to provide military and other support to anti-communist resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua and other nations, a policy that came to be known as the Reagan doctrine.
Patrick J. Michaels is a global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.
Fred Singer. Also a pro-tobacco lobbyist. In the early 1990s, while officially “on leave” from the University of Virginia, Singer set up the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy with the help of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and with funding support from the Unification Church (also known as “Moonies,” followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church).
Dr. Willie Wei-Hock Soon has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming. Many of the papers he has published on the topic have been co-authored with Sallie L. Baliunas and sometimes with her and other co-authors. Between December 1998 and September 2001 he was listed as a “Scientific Adviser” to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies.
David G. Tuerck is the Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute, which describes itself as being “grounded in the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets.”
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication produced by the Heartland Institute think tank, and devoted to “sound science and free-market environmentalism,” which labels the scientific consensus on climate change as “alarmist.”
The usual industry related agenda driven groups. Lacking in climate scientists.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:32 am
“..As to his credentials,..”
let’s not forget..monckton is a ‘qualified journalist’..
and..
is ansell redbaiter..?
d’yareckon..?
the rhetoric is almost alarmingly close..
and ansell..were you the architect of that racist iwi/kiwi campaign by national/brash..?
that would fit with yr admiration of rand..eh..?
with her disdain for the ‘inferior races’..
and them just being ‘tools’ for the use/exploitation by the ‘business-elites’..
it’s a very tawdry little belief system you have there.
isn’t it ansell..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
All you guys ever do is play the man. Try playing the ball.
Look at the facts. There’s 95 minutes of them, so you can’t say I’m sloganising.
Dispute them by all means. I’m not a scientist either. If Monckton’s wrong, tell me where, and why. I’m not too proud to change my mind.
People can always dig up dirt on the players. There’s plenty on Gore. But all that is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the facts they present.
I’m not sure Einstein was a ‘qualified scientist’ when he published the Theory of Relativity. From memory he was a patent clerk.
Didn’t make him wrong though, did it?
November 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
so..is monkton..all you have got..?
(the man who was too radical for the bush regime..
(basically wanting to go and bomb anyone he felt america has a grudge against..
namely john ‘bomb em!’ bolton..
..he reckons monckton is an ‘extremist’..(!)
but..he is a ‘qualified journalist’ tho’..
eh..?
so..anyone else..?
or is ‘that it’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
and..are you comparing monckton..or yourself..to einstein..?
(i mean..whoar..!..for either..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
John, facts lead us to truth, and truth to freedom. Socialists hate freedom ergo they detest facts and truth. So… no point in asking for a fact-based rebuttal.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
And freedom leads to the dreaded capitalism.
I was hoping one of them would have a go at rebutting Monckton on the science. I’m not wedded to his point of view, and I’m keen to know if he’s as good as he says he is. (I once accepted Gore at face value, until the evidence of his lying became too strong to ignore.)
But while I’m no scientist, my respect for Monckton builds the more I see Gore and co. run scared whenever they are challenged to debate him.
What other conclusion can you draw than that Gore and co. know that Monckton will make a meal of them because he’s right?
As for the lefties here, their only argument seems to be ‘Where the UN stands, we stand.’ A curious position, given that the UN is made up mainly of corrupt dictatorships.
The critics deride Monckton for being ‘only’ a journalist. Yet a journalist is someone who is paid to root out the truth. A lawyer does not need to be a scientist to prove a case that hinges on science. Neither does a journalist. He simply needs to be able to bang the scientists’ heads together until one is found to be hollow.
And isn’t it interesting that those same critics do not seem nearly so keen to deride Gore for being ‘only’ a politician – one who runs a company that profits handsomely from the climate scam he promotes?
Anyway getstaffed, the main thing is Monckton has won. His speech has generated so much controversy that there’s no way a Copenhagen Treaty will happen now.
But it was a near thing. If anyone deserves a Nobel Prize for services to humanity, Monckton does.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
John, I was a ‘warmist’ until about 2 years ago. Since then the rate of alarming truths about the fraud of the climate change business have increased no end and it *should* be a no brainer to walk away. The really clever aspect of this fraud is that it leverages the genuine, heart-felt concern that so people have for the environment, but moves the response away to a hands-off financial levy (carbon tax, ETS etc)… while the real purpose of quitely creating some kind of global quasi-government is actioned below the radar. It is masterful, and we are sheep.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
It is masterful, because to launch a revolution under cover of a boring bureaucracy seems such a far-fetched idea.
Until you realise that the UN is really just a front for Socialist International. And that all revolutions begin as far-fetched ideas.
Then they happen, and it’s too late.
But fortunately, cometh the hour, cometh our man Monckton. An orator who out-Gores Gore in both content and style.
I love the way he employs the twin terrors of humour and simplicity to first, grab attention, then hold it, then unleash such a blitzkrieg of damning evidence that all his corrupt opponents can do is run away – and lob abuse from their hidey holes.
Good on ewe for changing sides when the evidence changed – that’s rare.
The sheep have spoken. Baa humbug!